I know in my heart and from what I see around me everyday that Race is for Real.

Which Theory of human life is hostile or not to the notion of a 'Race'?

Creationism or Evolutionism?

I have heard that fool David Suzuki saying that there are no more human species since the Neaderthals died out, but it seems to me that what we call 'Race' is probably like Dog Breeds or other animal breeds.

A pit bull and a golden lab are the same species all right, but with many different traits (sp?). And not just differences in size, colour!

There are clearly dog breeds with important mental differences too, even if they are the same species (the Chiahuaha versus the German Shepherd).

And most Dog Breeds only appeared in the last few thousand or even hundred years.

So why not humans?

We have been 'selectively breeding' (religious, cultural, social, even military practices) for much longer than that and yet so many still say 'Race doesn't exist' or 'Race is all in our heads'

You should note that religious discussion is strongly discouraged onthese boards.

However, you could argue that the very traditional biblical view that has all humanity descended from one couple who lived relatively recently is less favourable to the ideal of race than the evoulutionary one, which holds that the lineages that make separate races diverged at least 10,000 years ago and perhaps as much as 1,000,000 years ago.

Evolution? Scientific study is what lead to the idea of biological groupings such as families, species, sub-species, races, and much more. Evolution is a theory for the explanation of the origin of species, but also how species can change. Charles Darwin also suggested, as you mentions, the certain reality of artificial selection among domesticated animals.

A pure creationist view does work with the idea of Race. It does, but it does not explain how people change(or it denies that aspect altogether), nor does it try to explain how we got here(or it denies that we can change), there is no criteria, and it is unrelated to biology.

Apart from either view, the collectively shared history of given groups of people on this planet enforces a racial view of the given. All of the products that stem from a people are a product of their characteristics and uniqueness.

Originally posted by Neibelung I know in my heart and from what I see around me everyday that Race is for Real.

Which Theory of human life is hostile or not to the notion of a 'Race'?

Creationism or Evolutionism?

I have heard that fool David Suzuki saying that there are no more human species since the Neaderthals died out, but it seems to me that what we call 'Race' is probably like Dog Breeds or other animal breeds.

A pit bull and a golden lab are the same species all right, but with many different traits (sp?). And not just differences in size, colour!

There are clearly dog breeds with important mental differences too, even if they are the same species (the Chiahuaha versus the German Shepherd).

And most Dog Breeds only appeared in the last few thousand or even hundred years.

So why not humans?

We have been 'selectively breeding' (religious, cultural, social, even military practices) for much longer than that and yet so many still say 'Race doesn't exist' or 'Race is all in our heads'

As far as dog breeds go, it is a false analogy-a purebred rottweiler will in fact have other dog breeds present in it if you go back say, ten generations. The human races, in contrast, have been seperate for anywhere from 10-80 thousand years, maybe more, and could thus be considered 'pure'.

Religion aside, it is very clear that the Negro is a less evolved form of humanoid that has existed alongside the more fully evolved human (a "perdatory subspecies," if you will). It should have gone extinct (as the Neanderthal did), and if the White Man had not interfered in the natural scheme of things, it would have. The Negro first consumes its environment, then destroys non-negroid life forms, and eventually turns on itself. We see this pattern replicated over and over again regardless of time or place. However, we have interfered in the progression of this - in North America, Europe, and in Africa itself - and now are paying the price. Given the parasitic nature of "democracy", we have very little chance of correcting this unnatural state of affairs.

Breeds of dogs were artificially produced by humans and do do not persist even for the short term in nature.The variation between the dog breeds was magnified by synthetic selection. Human "races" or "species" which ever you wish to call them, evolved naturally, so it is invalid to compare the degree of variation between naturely produced Humans and the synthetically produced breeds of dogs.

Originally posted by redbarron Breeds of dogs were artificially produced by humans and do do not persist even for the short term in nature.The variation between the dog breeds was magnified by synthetic selection. Human "races" or "species" which ever you wish to call them, evolved naturally, so it is invalid to compare the degree of variation between naturely produced Humans and the synthetically produced breeds of dogs.

Yes. There are many closely related species of birds which are in fact interfertile. But they exhibit complete reproductive isolation in nature and so are considered separate species. They are good analogues of human races.